Com. ex rel. Crawley v. Myers

• Citation: 177 A.2d 177,197 Pa.Super. 78
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. John CRAWLEY, Appellant, v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pa.
• Decision Date: 16 January 1962
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Page 177

177 A.2d 177

197 Pa.Super. 78

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. John CRAWLEY, Appellant, v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent State Correctional

Institution at Graterford, Pa.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 16, 1962.

John Crawley, in pro. per.

William H. Wolf, Jr., Louis F. McCabe, Arlen Specter, Asst. Dist. Attys., Paul M. Chalfin, First Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY and FLOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Victor H. Blanc for the court below.

The opinion of Judge Blanc follows:

Relator was jointly indicted on Bill Nos. 226, 227 and 229, December Term, 1957, charging Aggravated Robbery, Assault and Battery, Conspiracy and Receiving Stolen Goods.

On June 11, 1958, relator, along with the other two defendants, was tried before the Honorable Theodore L. Reimel, Jr., without a jury, and found guilty on the aforementioned bills. He was sentenced to three to ten years at the Eastern Correctional Institution on Bill 226, the Robbery bill, and sentences were suspended on the other two bills.

Relator now by writ of Habeas Corpus presents the following questions:

1. Whether or not a conviction is valid where the evidence is a proof of innocence, rather than guilt?

2. Whether or not a conviction is valid wherein there is proof that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated?

There is no merit to relator's first contention in that the record of the trial court does not support his assertion that the 'evidence did not establish his guilt, but proved to the contrary, his innocence.' The record clearly indicates that the relator was identified as participating in the robbery by the victim.

The law is well settled in Pennsylvania that the sufficiency of evidence upon which a conviction is based cannot be tested in a Habeas Corpus proceeding. Com. ex rel. Jones v. Day, 181 Pa.Super. 37, 121 A.2d 896; Com. ex rel. Ruger v. Day, 176 Pa.Super. 479, 108 A.2d 818. In Com. ex rel. Sharpe v. Burke, 174 Pa.Super. 350, 354, 101 A.2d 397, 399, the court stated: 'Both appellate courts of this Commonwealth have repeatedly and clearly stated the limitations of habeas corpus. It is not available to review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which a conviction is based, or for the correction of trial errors which could have been...